move_node_relative

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation moves the entire subtree (node + descendants), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits/constraints for this mutation operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality with key details. The second sentence provides usage context efficiently. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the subtree behavior, but doesn't cover error conditions, response format, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of moving nodes in a hierarchy, more behavioral context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it reinforces that positioning is 'relative' but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details that aren't already in the parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('move'), resource ('node'), and scope ('and all its children') with specific positioning ('relative to a reference node'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'move_node' (which likely moves to absolute positions) by emphasizing the relative positioning approach.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('the intuitive way to reorganize your outline') and implies it's for relative positioning versus absolute positioning. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.